Letters

Letters

Wide choice limits opportunities

I read with interest the timely debate about single-versus-multiple operators being allowed to award qualifications (Head to Head, Spring 2008). As a disabled student who completed the `non-academic' route (CSEs, BTEC, OND and HND and Polytechnic Graduate Diploma instead of O-levels through to a Bachelor's degree), I can still say, as I approach my 40th birthday, that these qualifications prevent me from having choice of both higher education courses and employment opportunities, despite repeated claims that they are equivalent to a `real' degree. I was rejected from three universities to complete a postgraduate diploma in law despite my practical background ¬ five years of case-work experience with an education law charity, and 10 years' experience of parliamentary work. There is a correlation between the increase in qualifications and decrease in the range of available opportunities thereafter. If my opportunities have been limited, then the situation could get worse with multiple awarding boards, which are going to include employers, colleges and, dare I say it, special schools, pupil referral units and even the secure training centres. What will be the value of a certificate which has a secure training centre label attached to it? Despite efforts to boost the status of national vocational and entry-level qualifications, the public perception is still that of second-class status. Just as has been the typical pattern with degrees, the institution attended, rather than course knowledge and skills attained, may well be the defining factor for entrance into a course or job. Is this what we want in an education system based on social justice? Simone Aspis, campaigns and policy worker, Alliance for Inclusive Education
REVIEW A lesson in learning how to learn

Assessment in Secondary Schools Author: Dr Val Brooks Publisher: Open University Press 2002, reprinted 2008 Price: £19.99 Ratings (out of five): usefulness (4), relevance (4), readability (5) This readable book avoids too many references to research in favour of concentrating on a practical approach with the newly qualified teacher in mind, but it is equally suitable for trainees. The author suggests assessment is a neglected area. Having set the scene, an informative chapter on assessment and planning follows. Dr Brooks doesn't just talk about assessment but relates it to planning and practical issues in the classroom such as sharing objectives with pupils. She talks about differentiation, a skill which may trainees on ITT courses find difficult. This is a strength of the book ¬ it doesn't take a narrow view but integrates assessment with other aspects of teaching. The chapter on "assessment in the classroom" is full of practical advice a and techniques. I particularly liked the section on creating a relaxed classroom free from the threat of humiliation when f pupils make mistakes. Oral feedback, observation, and questioning are three possible ways of assessing pupils in the classroom. The author describes t these techniques in detail, pointing out t the common error among teachers of t not giving children long enough to think about their answers. Chapters follow on responding to children's written work, school policies, and reporting. Despite this book being full of very good and timeless advice, it does feel out of date. It is described as having been reprinted in 2008, but it clearly has not been revised. In the very first sentence Brooks refers to the 1998 standards which have since been completely revised ¬ twice! I could find no references later than 2000. In summary this is a practical book full of good advice, but it needs an update. Geoff White FCIEA Senior lecturer and course leader, PGCE in Secondary IT, Bath Spa University

Read all about it ! 

Head to head: Denise Lodge, Jannette Elwood

Here come the girls Denise Lodge celebrates the success of single-sex education

Girls' over-achievement at school is such a success story we should be proclaiming it from the highest heights. The success is visible in the league tables that the press use to rank schools based on their GCSE and A-level results. It is the singlesex schools that have consistently dominated the tables for years. And it's the girls' schools that occupy the premier positions. In independent schools, students in girls' schools score higher than girls in co-ed schools. Look at statistics from the past four years: GCSE A*-C, GCSE A*-A and A-level A-C, the figures are 98 per cent, 66 per cent and 93 per cent in girls' schools compared with 94 per cent, 53 per cent, and 89 per cent for girls in co-ed schools. At A-level in 2005, girls in independent schools took 52 per cent of the A grades while girls in independent co-ed schools took just 42 per cent. In Mathematics, Physics, English and French in girls' schools they scored 70 per cent, 54 per cent, 54 per cent and 54 per cent but the girls in co-ed schools scored 62 per cent, 44 per cent, 38 per cent and 42 per cent. Clearly, it's a phenomenon. So, yes, girls do over-achieve, if they are in a school that specialises in the education of girls. Parents with both sons and daughters know that they learn in different ways. Learning and discovery are emotional as well as intellectual activities and it is only in schools that take this into account that girls will thrive and fulfil their potential. The girls of today will be the leaders of tomorrow and parents believe that there should be no limits on their ambitions, either professionally or personally. The world of employment, however, is not always so enlightened and there are sticky floors and glass ceilings that need to be dealt with. At girls' schools the girls are shoed with Teflon feet and tough heads and prepared for the positions of authority. There is no sex stereotyping regarding subject choice in girls' schools. A survey in 2004 showed that in girls' independent schools compared with all girls elsewhere, including co-ed schools, 70 per cent more girls took A-level maths, 90 per cent more took physics or chemistry and 80 per cent more studied modern languages. Outside the school gates girls get plenty of opportunity for living in the real world. Yet it can be a relief for girls to know that, after a weekend packed with social fun, they don't have to deal with boys on Monday morning. Parents who are rightly ambitious for their children will therefore avoid the mistake of sending their girls to Dad's old school because it is simply not geared to the right kind of schooling that should nurture their girls and prepare them for the world outside. The enlightenment that is found in girls' schools does not always spread to universities. It is to be hoped that the good practices that we employ could be spread into some university establishments and into the world of work. The current financial situation could perhaps have been avoided if more women had been employed on the boards of FTSE 100 companies. A more reasoned voice could have reduced the overt risk-taking in the worlds in which gambling with ordinary people's savings seems to have become acceptable. Girls' schools are successful in producing girls who are superb overachievers. The pressure should now be on the universities and on the employers to do the decent thing for their young women too ¬ our country needs it.

About the author Dr Denise V Lodge is the Head of Putney High School GDST, has taught in co-ed and girls' schools, independent and maintained, and attended a co-ed and a girls' school, both independent and maintained

Myths and misses

Jannette Elwood tackles clichés about gender differences and exam results

Differences in examination outcomes between boys and girls are a popular, yet contentious, area of research and debate. As a media story, gender differences in examinations are big business. Of particular concern over the past decade has been the apparent underachievement of boys relative to girls at the end of compulsory schooling. Girls' achievement levels at this important phase of education are well exceeding those of boys, and girls are leaving school better qualified. While research suggests that girls' improved achievement at school is the result of the removal of barriers to girls' attainment, and changing expectations on the part of girls, their successes are still portrayed as achieved at the expense of boys, and girls are still being blamed for boys' failure. Such notions of boys' and girls' achievements are, in the main, simplistic and belie the complex factors that influence why boys and girls do differently in examinations. Looking at the patterns of examination results on any one series of examinations hides the shifting patterns of success that boys and girls experience at different stages of examining (For example, GCSE and A-level). Let us consider result patterns of boys and girls at GCSE and A-level in the UK. If we look at the benchmark indicators of the proportion of students from each group achieving grades A*-C (at GCSE) and A-C (at A-level) we will see some very different results. In 2008, statistics from the Joint Council for Qualifications showed that slightly more girls than boys were entered for GCSE examinations (51 per cent) and girls obtained 7.2 per cent more GCSEs at grades A*-C compared to boys. More girls enter for A-level examinations and, overall, girls perform better than boys, achieving 5.3 per cent more A-C grades. However, if we look behind these figures we start to get a different story. These aggregate statistics ignore the relative proportions of boys and girls not entered for examinations, the proportion of boys and girls who are entered but who do not complete their examinations, and the increase in the proportion of both boys and girls who obtain good pass grades at GCSE every year. What these figures also hide is a cross-over in performance between boys and girls at 16 and 18 in particular subjects that show the differences in top grades awarded to boys and girls reversed. For example, in French in 2008, girls were 57 per cent of the entry at GCSE in this subject and obtained 10 per cent more A*-C grades than boys, whereas at A-level, while girls are still the biggest entry for the subject (at 69 per cent), boys obtained 0.5 per cent more A-C grades. More realistic patterns of performance tell us different stories for boys and girls in relation to their achievements: that there is more overlap in performances between boys and girls and bigger differences within these groups (attributable to the interaction of gender, ethnicity and levels of poverty). We need to stop positioning girls' achievement relative to that of boys' and vice-versa. A less relational positioning would enable girls' successes to be viewed in context and acknowledge that not all girls are achieving at similar levels. Boys' perceived underachievement would then not be regarded as a universal problem for all boys but only as a problem for certain boys at certain stages of schooling. Such a position may go some way to highlighting the most important element of this debate ¬ which boys, and indeed which girls, are underachieving, and at what stages and phases of education?

About the author Professor Jannette Elwood is director of research clusters: contexts of teaching, learning and assessment at Queen's University Belfast, and deputy chair of the Research Committee at AQA

At Make the Grade, we are keen to involve CIEA members and to air their opinions. If you would like to review the latest professional publications, please email your contact details to makethegrade@redactive.co.uk

Make the Grade welcomes letters. Please include your address, job title and telephone number. We regret that we are unable to print letters from sources we cannot verify. By email: makethegrade@redactive.co.uk By post: The Editor Make the Grade Redactive Media Group 17 Britton Street London EC1M 5TP